- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by steincj
- Apr 18, 2003, 09:48 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 18, 2003, 05:10 PMChris, based on context, it seems to me that jhocking's post was most likely a reply to Porthos, the originator of this message thread.
Well, George, I hope he was referring to Potrhos. That would make more sense -- although it wouldn't have been the first time that my postings were labeled as an "anti-intellectual embarassment."
Chris
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 18, 2003, 05:10 PMChris, based on context, it seems to me that jhocking's post was most likely a reply to Porthos, the originator of this message thread.
Posted by steincj
- Apr 18, 2003, 02:12 PMQuote from: jhocking on Apr 18, 2003, 03:04 AMYour post is an anti-intellectual embarrassment. You are saying: "Don't reveal the truth - a bad person might use it. Instead, let's perpetuate the lie and the let many good people suffer."
jhocking,
Who are you talking to with your post? You immediately followed my post, but did not address any one person. Am I to assume you are addressing me?
Chris
Posted by jhocking
- Apr 18, 2003, 03:04 AMAre you aware that the National Academy of Science (2003), after being asked by government agencies to examine the efficacy of the polygraph as a tool to identify individuals who may be security risks, concluded that the test has NO VALIDITY WHATSOEVER.
Your post is an anti-intellectual embarrassment. You are saying: "Don't reveal the truth - a bad person might use it. Instead, let's perpetuate the lie and the let many good people suffer."
Read David Lyyken's (1998) book, "A Tremor in the Blood." This is the definitive statement to date about uses and abuses of the polygraph. Dr. Lyyken, a real Ph.D., has spent 40 years of a distinguished career examining every aspect of the polygraph with meticulous scientific rigor. He reviews virtually all known research, as well as his own. His conclusions are consistent with those of the Academy, the most respected group of scientists in the world. Check out their Web site for confirmation.
The polygraph is a scam, pure and simple. Anyone who doubts this merely need examine the scientific literature and not that put out by the polygraph industry - a group that makes nearly $100 million a year perpetuating the myth of the "lie detector."
Your post is an anti-intellectual embarrassment. You are saying: "Don't reveal the truth - a bad person might use it. Instead, let's perpetuate the lie and the let many good people suffer."
Read David Lyyken's (1998) book, "A Tremor in the Blood." This is the definitive statement to date about uses and abuses of the polygraph. Dr. Lyyken, a real Ph.D., has spent 40 years of a distinguished career examining every aspect of the polygraph with meticulous scientific rigor. He reviews virtually all known research, as well as his own. His conclusions are consistent with those of the Academy, the most respected group of scientists in the world. Check out their Web site for confirmation.
The polygraph is a scam, pure and simple. Anyone who doubts this merely need examine the scientific literature and not that put out by the polygraph industry - a group that makes nearly $100 million a year perpetuating the myth of the "lie detector."
Posted by steincj
- Apr 17, 2003, 02:47 AMQuote from: Zoe WInters on Apr 15, 2003, 10:36 PMIts not all about potheads tring to be cops. There are some people out there who used to be potheads or experimented with drugs when they were younger but don't have the desire to Ever do it again. Why should stupid mistakes they have made in the past ruin their whole life? It's stupid to disquilfy them for this reason. They should stick to random drug testing in the workplace. If someone is doing drugs while there are a cop they shouldn't be there and random drug test will "scare" people into not doing them.
Zoe,
I agree that drug testing is an integral part of maintaining a professional workplace, but I have to disagree with you on one point. When you make the argument that experimentation in the past should have no bearing on the present, I am brought back to my personal views on hiring standards. When you make exception to the standard, you ruin the entire system.
If the standard is that you not have smoked pot in the last 3 years, and you had smoked it 2 yrs 10 mos prior, it is not up to you to say that you are acceptable or not. Unless the agency makes exception to the standard, you are not acceptable.
If an agency uses a polygraph to gather that information, I think they are worng to do so. The polygraph is completely unreliable in determining such information. To me, the better way is to have an investigator find people who knew you 3 years ago and see whether or not you were into anything "funny." When the investigator is comfortable that you are clean, you are acceptable.
I think it is too easy to skew the purpose of polygraph countermeasures so that they fit an individuals needs. As you all may or may not know, I am opposed to the use of countermeasures, because they further corrupt an already corrupted system. I only enlighten others to the existence of countermeasures in an effort to completely ruin the reputation of the polygraph, in further hopes that the polygraph system is removed (or at least, the pre-emplyment screening "probable-lie test").
To those of you who call this site a joke:
I am not a pothead-cop-wanna-be. I am a former Military Intelligence Officer who applied for a position of Special Agent with the FBI. During my polygraph, I was accused of being a spy. I had no ulterior motive other than to serve my country once again.
All of you who blanket this site and its users as "facilitators of criminals," ask yourself this: Is Antipolygraph.org guilty of teaching others how to manipulate the polygraph, or are the government and some local agencies guilty of blind faith in a machine that is easily susceptible to inaccuracy and countermeasures?
Don't blame a product of the system when the system itself is to blame.
Chris
Posted by Zoe WInters
- Apr 15, 2003, 10:36 PMIts not all about potheads tring to be cops. There are some people out there who used to be potheads or experimented with drugs when they were younger but don't have the desire to Ever do it again. Why should stupid mistakes they have made in the past ruin their whole life? It's stupid to disquilfy them for this reason. They should stick to random drug testing in the workplace. If someone is doing drugs while there are a cop they shouldn't be there and random drug test will "scare" people into not doing them.
Posted by orolan
- Mar 10, 2003, 12:22 AMFunnyguy, you seem to have a fixation on drug abuse. This site is about a LOT more than potheads trying to get jobs as cops. It's about ridding the country of this psuedo-science, and keeping people's lives from being ruined in the meantime.
As for George and his PhD, does it matter if he is still working on his dissertation? I suppose you are an expert on Persian proverbs and could whip out such a document over a weekend? I didn't think so. Getting a PhD is not easy, especially in Near Eastern Studies. By the way, did you ever get YOUR PhD?
As for George and his PhD, does it matter if he is still working on his dissertation? I suppose you are an expert on Persian proverbs and could whip out such a document over a weekend? I didn't think so. Getting a PhD is not easy, especially in Near Eastern Studies. By the way, did you ever get YOUR PhD?
Posted by triple x
- Mar 09, 2003, 11:52 PMFunnyguy,
[You write]
"The only reason this site even exists is because of one pot smoking malcontent that couldn't get a job with the Federal Government."
You couldn't be further from the truth. What about the countless innocent people that have been falsely accused of being spies, liars, thieves, drug dealers/users, etc., based on an unreliable method of testing?
You're opening and closing statement paragraph(s) reference drug use scenarios, and you attempt to connect them [lay blame] to this website. I personally fail to identify with your implied connection.
Drug users are screened for via very accurate methods of screening and testing. They will not be successful in their quest for federal employment within the federal agencies you reference. This point you raise has nothing to do whatsoever with this website. Drug users will eventually be exposed during routine standard background investigations, door to door reference checks, secret clearance SF86 investigations, etc., etc.
[You ask]
"How does it feel to know you are willingly helping people get into law enforcement?"
Helping people get into federal employment and LE positions by reducing the potential risk of false positive results, I personally feel pretty good...
Regards,
Triple x
[You write]
"The only reason this site even exists is because of one pot smoking malcontent that couldn't get a job with the Federal Government."
You couldn't be further from the truth. What about the countless innocent people that have been falsely accused of being spies, liars, thieves, drug dealers/users, etc., based on an unreliable method of testing?
You're opening and closing statement paragraph(s) reference drug use scenarios, and you attempt to connect them [lay blame] to this website. I personally fail to identify with your implied connection.
Drug users are screened for via very accurate methods of screening and testing. They will not be successful in their quest for federal employment within the federal agencies you reference. This point you raise has nothing to do whatsoever with this website. Drug users will eventually be exposed during routine standard background investigations, door to door reference checks, secret clearance SF86 investigations, etc., etc.
[You ask]
"How does it feel to know you are willingly helping people get into law enforcement?"
Helping people get into federal employment and LE positions by reducing the potential risk of false positive results, I personally feel pretty good...
Regards,
Triple x
Posted by Seeker
- Mar 09, 2003, 11:36 PMI believe this thread has shown a very important, yet so often overlooked, fact.
If you go into a place looking for something good, for good causes, and with the complete intention of finding the good in the place, you will arive with exactly that...the good. If on the other hand, you go into a place looking for something bad, for unjust purposes, and with the intention of purpetuating a bad thing, you will find just that.
This site does have both sides - good and bad. what anyone chooses to find here will be based upon their intentions when coming to this site.
For a lot of folks, they failed a polygraph exam when they knew 100% within themselves that they were honest, and the confusion as to how something could be so dead wrong and yet be such an integral part of the application process bewilders them. Their stories are the ones that will, as they increase in number, demand an end to all of this nonsense.
However, these aren't the only folks in here. Some are indeed looking to better their odds in passing a polygraph exam. Some are folk who have not taken an exam because of the knowledge that this is such lunacy. Still others are here for the sole purpose of seeing this horrific insane and unfair practice find its final resting place. We all come for different reasons, just as we all stay or go for different reasons.
To try to condemn any site for exposing the lie that our federal government continues to sanction is simply one-sided and proves the motivation of some to cling onto their fraudulant jobs while leaving claw marks on the walls.
I suggest a more fair-minded assesment before showing yourself to be so completely ignorant and biased.
Regards,
Seeker
If you go into a place looking for something good, for good causes, and with the complete intention of finding the good in the place, you will arive with exactly that...the good. If on the other hand, you go into a place looking for something bad, for unjust purposes, and with the intention of purpetuating a bad thing, you will find just that.
This site does have both sides - good and bad. what anyone chooses to find here will be based upon their intentions when coming to this site.
For a lot of folks, they failed a polygraph exam when they knew 100% within themselves that they were honest, and the confusion as to how something could be so dead wrong and yet be such an integral part of the application process bewilders them. Their stories are the ones that will, as they increase in number, demand an end to all of this nonsense.
However, these aren't the only folks in here. Some are indeed looking to better their odds in passing a polygraph exam. Some are folk who have not taken an exam because of the knowledge that this is such lunacy. Still others are here for the sole purpose of seeing this horrific insane and unfair practice find its final resting place. We all come for different reasons, just as we all stay or go for different reasons.
To try to condemn any site for exposing the lie that our federal government continues to sanction is simply one-sided and proves the motivation of some to cling onto their fraudulant jobs while leaving claw marks on the walls.
I suggest a more fair-minded assesment before showing yourself to be so completely ignorant and biased.
Regards,
Seeker
Posted by Funyguy
- Mar 09, 2003, 11:04 PMOf all the places I have seen on the net, this ranks right up there with the teaching drug addicts how to beat the piss test when they're on parole.
How does it feel to know you are willingly helping people get into law enforcement? Whether or not the polygraph is flawed is besides the point. The majority of people looking for this type of information will be those that need some sort of edge to pass the so-called "test".
Now this type of information may be available elsewhere on the internet, so maybe that eases your mind from culpability. After reading the stories on here...I guess I'm just amazed.
All I can hope for is that those drug users fail the polygraph or piss-test and are never hired into USSS, DEA, FBI, or the CIA.
Logged
You miss the entire point. The only reason this site even exists is because of one pot smoking malcontent that couldn't get a job with the Federal Government. Unfortunately several other addicts latched onto this site and somehow justified there shortcomings by blaming the polygraph. It is quite amusing though.
By the way George. Did you ever get your PHD or are you still A-Hum studying for it.
How does it feel to know you are willingly helping people get into law enforcement? Whether or not the polygraph is flawed is besides the point. The majority of people looking for this type of information will be those that need some sort of edge to pass the so-called "test".
Now this type of information may be available elsewhere on the internet, so maybe that eases your mind from culpability. After reading the stories on here...I guess I'm just amazed.
All I can hope for is that those drug users fail the polygraph or piss-test and are never hired into USSS, DEA, FBI, or the CIA.
Logged
You miss the entire point. The only reason this site even exists is because of one pot smoking malcontent that couldn't get a job with the Federal Government. Unfortunately several other addicts latched onto this site and somehow justified there shortcomings by blaming the polygraph. It is quite amusing though.
By the way George. Did you ever get your PHD or are you still A-Hum studying for it.
Posted by PeterFonda
- Feb 18, 2003, 04:28 PMPorthos,
If you will take the time to review some posts, you will see that most of the people here are wanna be cops..Not out and out drug addicts..I was on probation for domestic abuse, (pushed my ex-wife out of the house), had unauthorized contact when probation calling for NO CONTACT. I used some of the advise on the antipolygraph.com site to beat my test.
Now that I have had time to think, I some what agree with you....The information on this site offers powerful ammunition...Do we want dirty cops patroling our streets?
If you will take the time to review some posts, you will see that most of the people here are wanna be cops..Not out and out drug addicts..I was on probation for domestic abuse, (pushed my ex-wife out of the house), had unauthorized contact when probation calling for NO CONTACT. I used some of the advise on the antipolygraph.com site to beat my test.
Now that I have had time to think, I some what agree with you....The information on this site offers powerful ammunition...Do we want dirty cops patroling our streets?
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 24, 2003, 01:03 PMDear Anonymous,
My comment was in relationship to the polygraph interrogation's ability to obtain confessions. I am not assigning any more than chance accuracy as used in polygraph screening to the instrument readings or polygraph interpretation. I am still withholding a final judgement on specific incident and GKT testing upon further research which is scientifically acceptable.
Regards.
My comment was in relationship to the polygraph interrogation's ability to obtain confessions. I am not assigning any more than chance accuracy as used in polygraph screening to the instrument readings or polygraph interpretation. I am still withholding a final judgement on specific incident and GKT testing upon further research which is scientifically acceptable.
Regards.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 24, 2003, 11:21 AMFair Chance,
Although I generally agree with much of what you write, I'm afraid I must take exception to the following.
You wrote in part:
Actually it (the effect of an examinee's beliefs regarding polygraph accuracy) really doesn't matter. It is only in the eye of a polygrapher that it does and which necessitates (from his perspective) the initial con we have come to know and love as the stim (now called acquaintance) test. Polygraphy has no accuracy regardless of examinees beliefs about such. Many of the innocent examinees that give testimony of false positive results on this site initially believed ( prior to their personal encounter and ensuing debacle involving such) in the accuracy of polygraphy. Even for the guilty examinee, his beliefs regarding polygraph accuracy have no bearing on the accuracy of the exam (again, most formats are not accurate and have no validity), but when confronted with a deception indicated (DI) result, a guilty subject who believes in the accuracy of polygraph may be more inclined to offer a confession/admission than one who does not.
As the NAS panel indicated, with increased public awareness, this latter group (guilty examinees who "believe" and confess) is/will become a rarer commodity while any continued/increased use of polygraph screening will only increase the number of those examinees who are accurately characterized as being innocent and who either believing or not believing will be subsequently and wrongly found to be deceptive and therefore represent false positive outcomes. Increased knowledge of the truth about polygraphy will not only increase the public's awareness that it (polygraph screening in particular and lie detection in general) is both faulty and fraudulent but will decrease any utility (a prop for obtaining confessions) it may ever have had.
Although I generally agree with much of what you write, I'm afraid I must take exception to the following.
You wrote in part:
Quote...The polygraph works only in limited settings when the examinee believes in its accuracy....
Actually it (the effect of an examinee's beliefs regarding polygraph accuracy) really doesn't matter. It is only in the eye of a polygrapher that it does and which necessitates (from his perspective) the initial con we have come to know and love as the stim (now called acquaintance) test. Polygraphy has no accuracy regardless of examinees beliefs about such. Many of the innocent examinees that give testimony of false positive results on this site initially believed ( prior to their personal encounter and ensuing debacle involving such) in the accuracy of polygraphy. Even for the guilty examinee, his beliefs regarding polygraph accuracy have no bearing on the accuracy of the exam (again, most formats are not accurate and have no validity), but when confronted with a deception indicated (DI) result, a guilty subject who believes in the accuracy of polygraph may be more inclined to offer a confession/admission than one who does not.
As the NAS panel indicated, with increased public awareness, this latter group (guilty examinees who "believe" and confess) is/will become a rarer commodity while any continued/increased use of polygraph screening will only increase the number of those examinees who are accurately characterized as being innocent and who either believing or not believing will be subsequently and wrongly found to be deceptive and therefore represent false positive outcomes. Increased knowledge of the truth about polygraphy will not only increase the public's awareness that it (polygraph screening in particular and lie detection in general) is both faulty and fraudulent but will decrease any utility (a prop for obtaining confessions) it may ever have had.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 24, 2003, 10:19 AMQuote from: Porthos on Jan 23, 2003, 11:09 PMDear Porthos,
Replace it with what, is my question? We don't have the technology to scan minds...yet. I guess the only real answer for the moment is random piss, blood and hair tests. That costs a lot of money though and is invasive to work and your person.
Once again, the money issue, an important issue (funds are not unlimited) comes to the surface. How much money do we lose when our costly research secrets (via spies) are given to hostile governments? At what price do we limit our desire to stop another major terrorist strike?
The polygraph works only in limited settings when the examinee believes in its accuracy ("for purposes of getting confessions, not polygraph results ": This comment was added after its original posting for clarification).
If I have an automobile model that explodes while driving but I have only a one in two chance of it happening to me, what do I do? I walk. Someone tells me that walking is not a reasonable or better alternative. I take a bus. The person tells me that there is no bus route going to where I want to go. I call a cab but it cost too much money. Maybe I can buy a bike. I will try anything else but I am not going to take a 50/50 chance of blowing up in a car that I know has a problem just because there "are no other better alternatives".
The false sense of security of "passing" a polygraph is far more damaging than assuming the employee could be a security risk until proven otherwise by investigation and life history, and other more costly scientifically aceptable tests. The government can find money for all kinds of "pork", why not spend more in this sensitive area?
Regards.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 24, 2003, 01:01 AMQuote from: Porthos on Jan 23, 2003, 11:09 PM
Replace it with what, is my question? We don't have the technology to scan minds...yet. I guess the only real answer for the moment is random piss, blood and hair tests. That costs a lot of money though and is invasive to work and your person.
I'll concede that polygraphs are cheaper than actual scientific determination of wrongdoing. They are hardly less invasive, however -- quite the opposite, IMHO.
QuoteIf you were in charge of the hiring process for the fed. gov't, what would you suggest they do to weed out liars?
I do not believe there is a reliable way to weed out liars at this time (including the polygraph, CVSA, etc.), beyond thorough verification with background checks and drug testing.
Skeptic